Bruce might not have had a Professional fight record but he did fight plenty. Before he moved to the U.S it was common to fight on the streets of Hong Kong. He also had to fight to be able to teach here and He fought numerous times on his sets by would be movie stars out to steal the spotlight. Also due to the fact that he was teaching three different champions at the same time it must be assumed that he was an excellent fighter because why would someone who was already a champ learn anything from someone who could not beat them?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chen Zen:Bruce might not have had a Professional fight record but he did fight plenty. Before he moved to the U.S it was common to fight on the streets of Hong Kong. He also had to fight to be able to teach here and He fought numerous times on his sets by would be movie stars out to steal the spotlight. Also due to the fact that he was teaching three different champions at the same time it must be assumed that he was an excellent fighter because why would someone who was already a champ learn anything from someone who could not beat them?[/QUOTE]

So you would never learn from a teacher that you could beat in a fight? What if a muay thai boxer can beat one of the best bjj guys in the world. Does that mean he should not learn bjj from him? Fighting "actors" on a set is one thing, but fighting professional fights is another. If I told you I beat a lot of actors would you give me respect, I hope not. I have met many people who have fought on the streets, I have even done a small amount of it from time to time, but that does not always mean that you can fight, and no everybody in China does not know kung fu so the question is were any of these "street fighters" and "actors" truly skilled. Theory is a wonderful thing. You first need a game plan before you actually do something. So what if Bruce was more about theory than actual application in an alive environment. Does that mean I cannot take his theory and apply it effectively. Hell no. There are many fighters who recieve training from people who have never fought. If you notice the champions that Bruce Lee trained already knew how to fight. They did not need him to teach them that, but he was able to give them that little extra to propel them to the next level. I have never heard of Bruce training anybody from "scratch" and making them into a fighting machine, but his principles can do wonders when someone is already versed in a "delivery system." It is that system where you learn to "fight," and it is Bruce's teaching that helps one put it altogether.

#20245 - 01/18/0411:52 AMRe: Was Bruce Lee a fighter? And did he make JKD to actually be a fighting art?

Anonymous
Unregistered

You guys are only capitalizing on Chen Zen last sentence.

But the rest of it is true not because Bruce didn't have a fight record didn't mean that he didn't actually fight. Who knows who he was before he came from Hong Kong...his fight record may be in Hong Kong for all you know.

Exactly my point. And for the record, no I would not train under someone I can beat. If I can beat you its because your technique is flawed and I do not intend to add flawed technique to my training regimen.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chen Zen:Exactly my point. And for the record, no I would not train under someone I can beat. If I can beat you its because your technique is flawed and I do not intend to add flawed technique to my training regimen.[/QUOTE]

So are you saying that the only reason a person loses a fight is because his technique is not as good as his opponent. What about heart, timing, speed, strength, power, etc. I have seen people with bad technique, but are naturally fast. Although they can not hit as hard as they could if they possesed better technique, they have enough power to knock somebody out and enough speed and timing to connect. I would rather learn from somebody who has excellent knowledge of their style and can teach rather than someone who is simply a good fighter. Just because you can fight does not mean that you can teach and viceversa. For instance Mark Kerr trained with and studied under Bass Ruten for a while, and was better for it. If he could have beaten Bas(which is a possiblity) should he have refused to study under him? That does not make any sense to me. Does that mean an undefeated champion should not learn from anyone since nobody can defeat him? Mike Tyson would have killed Cus Demato, but he was his trainer and he was great when he was being trained from Cus.

The conversation about learning from someone you can beat stemmed from the example of Bruce lee teaching other champs like joe lewis and chuck norris. Obviously Bruce was fast, had much power and technique so on and etc. Now given that he possessed these attributes if he could have been beaten by Chuck or Joe then it was because of flawed technique. Also I think any good teacher should be able to fight better than his students because he has more experience and a better understanding of the system. Shoalin Monks fight even in their late sixties and probably even older and are quite confident in doing so.